Can President Obama be trusted to protect Social Security?

[kentuck]

We would like to think so? But why did he put so many conservative, anti-Social Security people on the Commission??

Can the Democratic Party be trusted to protect Social Security? There was a time when we did not have to ask? What changed?

And if President Obama cannot be trusted to protect Social Security, can we trust enough Democrats to oppose President Obama?

I do not know.

[joeybee12]

1. The answer is no...

...he's bought into this whole "market cures all" mentality.

[RKP5637]

2. No. n/t

[closeupready]

76. Biased response based upon unsubstantiated beliefs!!!111!!

:sarcasm:

[RKP5637]

97. Ha, had me going for a minute!

:hi:

[unhappycamper]

3. No. n/t

[AndyA]

4. Can we trust President Obama? Based on his history, the answer is NO.

He has not kept his promises. He has not protected the Constitution. So, no I'm not sure we can trust him at this point.

[liberal N proud]

43. Not kept his promises on what?

Last night he was on TV discussing one promise he kept.

And how did he not protect the Constitution?

[zipplewrath]

68. Mandates and Cadillac taxes

DADT repealed in the first 100 days.
Transparency in the HCR negotiations?

How did he not protect the constitution? How about by going over to the CIA and telling the torturers he "had their backs"? How about wanting to "look forward not backward" as an excuse for not pursuing the abuses of the previous administration?

And executing the SOFA wasn't one of his promises.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

88. Hey, you asked the question

You can't pretend these things didn't happen. When someone asks about "trust" I gotta basically say, you can't "trust" him to do what he said he would. He'll do what he thinks he should do NOW, regardless of previous promises. He is obviously very focused on reducing the federal budget. It was a focus for him for HCR. He pushed hard to have Pay-Go re-instated. Now he is doing the whole deficit commission schtick. Why would anyone believe he wouldn't do with it, what he did with HCR and agree to things against which he campaigned, and in fact even stated were "must haves" in his congressional addresses. He'll do anything to lower the deficit.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WVRICK13]

102. 50,000 Troops Remain

call it anything you want but it is still involvement in a war. If those troops have weapons and will return fire they are still fighting.

[dkf]

5. The only thing that protects social security is the ability to pay.

Or it comes down to who you cut off. The rich are like the banksters. They will find the loophole to avoid paying taxes. In the end it wil come down to what you can squeeze out of the middle class. That is my admittedly cynical take on it.

[closeupready]

6. No, absolutely not.

n/t

[Skink]

7. he could take a stand if facing a Republican majority.

democrat legislation would probably look bad but republicans would probably think they could get anything they wanted if they had majorities.

[leeroysphitz]

51. He doesn't seem to take stands. Or else I would agree with you 100%

ETA: He does seem to take a stand against gay right tho so who knows?

[tibbiit]

8. no

[izquierdista]

9. Did we trust Clinton to protect welfare*?

I do know the answer, but I don't like it.

*or even to protect jobs from NAFTA.

[Autumn]

10. No. I am sorry to say that

I do not trust Obama to protect SS. No I do not trust the Democratic Party to protect SS. As to what changed all I can guess at is that they changed. I am still the same Democrat I have always been. I have the same values and principles. I just find myself disgusted with the Party very often.

[RKP5637]

98. Same here! n/t

[dkf]

11. Can we trust you to pay all your bills if you have no job?

It all comes back to fiscal health.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. SS is fully funded to 2037. The bills can be paid.

There is NO reason to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. Simply raising the contribution cap by 10%, a mere 10%, would keep it solvent indefinitely.

There is no crisis other than the impending deliberate destruction of the system.

[dkf]

91. It's only solvent if the US is solvent.

Those bonds aren't worth bunk.

[me b zola]

92. Then the problem is with our economy, not SS.n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. We have a multi-trillion dollar economy. There is nothing wrong with

our economy that fair taxation of the looters at the top won't cure. It is absolutely appalling that someone taking home 31 million/yr is taxed at a lower rate than I am at 31k a year. I have to spend virtually every cent I make just to live, while they could live better than I ever dreamed of if they were making one tenth of what they do - so why do they not pay taxes on ALL their income, just as I do?

If they did, SS and Medicare would be solvent forever.

[eridani]

106. Great. Let them refuse to pay China and Saudi Arabia first n/t

[blueworld]

124. Then the bridges & interstates will get repossessed. n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

12. I think we have to answer that based on actions, especially appointments.

(so that would mean no.)



Thanks for posting.



:hi:




:kick:

[jaxx]

13. He put 6 people on the commission. 6 people.

4 Democrats and 2 repubs.

How many times does this have to be straightened out?

[Stinky The Clown]

16. The implication of oyur statement is that the repubs would cut it and the Dems would not.

Facts not in evidence, counselor.

[jaxx]

24. The implications of your statement is bogus.

"So “President Obama has stacked his new 18-member commission”, really. I went to the executive order that created the commission and learned that this is how the 18 members were selected.

(a) six members appointed by the President, not more than four of whom shall be from the same political party;
(b) three members selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate;
(c) three members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate; and
(e) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives.

(courtesy of Cha 8.30.10)

[Stinky The Clown]

40. That doesn't answer what I said.

What I said was your post implies the repubs he appointed *might* want to gut SS wehereas the Dems would not.

I say that's not a sure thing.

Your citing something from another DUer is silly and proves nothing. However, even if you go dig up the original cite, it *still* fails to answer my charge.

I'll try to make this even easier: Demonstrate that the appointed Dems will defend SS.

[jaxx]

52. My post implied nothing.

It gave you the facts on the appointments to the commission. Look at that, you want me to jump through hoops because you were wrong. No way. You want info, go look it up.

I don't play games, so you're wasting your time with me.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. I'll try this really slow this time.

You implied the dems woud protect SS. I say the chosen dems are predisposed NOT to protect it.

THe cite you made means nothing in answer to that.

[inna]

22. he *created* the commission (by Exec Order) and stacked it with notorious SS looters.

[jaxx]

25. See answer above.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Answer about proves nothing. (See above)

[indepat]

34. Was Bowles, who was reported to be ready to gut social security until that stain on the blue dress

thingy side-railed the Bowles express, the Bowles that is one of those four Dems? Some Democrat! I would proffer that maybe every one on the Cat-food Commission is a RW conservative by design and with malice of forethought(?), you know, like a done-deal. Please, oh please, prove me wrong :)

[jaxx]

38. LOL I love conspiracy theories.

What else ya got?

[Stinky The Clown]

45. The charge is demonstrably accurate.

Dismissing it shows you to be out of defense.

[jaxx]

49. I don't need defense. I've got the facts.

Try it, you might like it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. Facts like the names of each of the 18 members, and quotes of where

they stand on SS?

THAT would be facts.

You got opinion.

[Marr]

53. Did he have to let minority and majority leaders in each house appoint an equal number of members?

[Kalyke]

72. Huh??? There's more than that!

Co-Chairmen:
Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton (Blue Dog)

Executive Director:
Bruce Reed, Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Clinton

Commissioners:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) (Blue Dog)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA 31) (Blue Dog)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI 4)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) (Sigh... Blue Dog... this is getting old)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX 5)
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9) (Finally, a progressive!)
Rep. John Spratt (D-SC 5)
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union (Wow! One employee representative in the lot! ONE!)



Edited to add: I see - you meant he, personally, appointed six people. Which six? I see a bunch of Blue Dog, DLC-types who are merely RepubliCON light. There's only one progressive and one worker's representative on the commission.

[dflprincess]

107. The ones Obama appointed were (with your descriptions attached)

Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton (Blue Dog)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union (Wow! One employee representative in the lot! ONE!)

As Kalyke pointed out, Obama appointed one person who will keep working people in mind.

Look at his appointments and consider that he doesn't care which part of the Democratic base Simpson insults that shows just how much Obama can be trusted on this issue.

[melm00se]

14. why?

politics baby...politics and political/election strategy

with Obama's commission to address the deficit, one of the largest parts of the federal budget (approximately 20%) is Social Security (with defense and security being a similar size):



this makes Social Security (as well as defense spending) as clear targets when it comes to budget trimming. If/when the proposals are made and Social Security (as well as other social programs: welfare, medicaid/medicare and SCHIP) changes are put forward, the ideological make up of the commission will provide a wonderful amount ammunition to use against the republicans coming into the midterm election or the 2012 presidential election.

[mediaman007]

50. Why is Social Security in the Federal budget?

Since it has a funding device, it should stand alone without any interference from the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches.

[Amonester]

73. It should stand alone but it's been looted for tax cuts for the rich and

imperial wars of aggression and it is now full of IOU's.

[bluethruandthru]

81. Exactly!

Social security is funded through us and our employers...it was designed to be a trust fund and NOT part of the federal budget. Those who stole it have no right to now say we can't have what was promised to us.
It's a shame more people don't realize this.
Social security is called an entitlement..because we're "entitled" to it. We pay into it specifically as opposed to the rest of our taxes. We should not be allowing people (repubs, dems, media) to portray SS as some kind of welfare.

[Mimosa]

128. ^ Excellent points, bluethruandthru. ^

Too bad the politicians have no similar understanding of Social Security.

[melm00se]

83. if none of the branches of government

can "interfere" who has oversight and responsibility?

As to why it's in the Federal Budget? it's money taken in, spent out and has administrative costs...all of which must be budgeted and accounted for.

[mediaman007]

85. Is the post office a part of the federal budget?

[melm00se]

126. no

it is off budget as it is considered self financing (in theory no taxes are used just the revenues from it operations).

look where that got us:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/national/main6747001.shtml

[Liberalynn]

99. That's what my late History Professor used to argue.

The asshats should not be allowed to touch SS because it was never meant to be part of the General Budget and should not be used to balanced said budget.

[Hawkowl]

15. No.

No public option. Warrantless wiretaps. No closing of Guantanamo.

Obama is a lying politician who use "pragmatism" to obscure his lack of a moral compass.

[blindpig]

17. No, no, and no.

The people are on their own. We'd better get used to it and do something about it.

[lillypaddle]

18. yes, yes, yes

[kentuck]

20. Why are so many people saying no??

The President seems to have a very damaged relationship with the left of his Party? Does he not care?

[closeupready]

27. Because he's proven to those who worked to get him elected that he's not trust-worthy.

He's broken a great number of his promises, his people have essentially called us retards and junkies. Why would we trust such a person?

[asdjrocky]

19. It doesn't look like it. nt

[BurtWorm]

21. Frankly, no, he cannot be.

It's not just the Simpson thing. I have a suspicion, based on what I've been reading over the last month or so, that Obama is prepared--even well-prepared--to use Social Security reform as an incentive to get 'bipartisan' cooperation on other aspects of his agenda, including raising taxes on the highest bracket (and not to even Nixon-era levels).

[bluethruandthru]

82. I think you're right and I suspect he wants to "prove"

to the right that a Dem can be "fiscally responsible" by paying down or getting rid of the deficit. I honestly don't think he cares at all that it'll be on the backs of what remains of the middle class.

I really wish I didn't feel this way :(

[Nite Owl]

23. No,

I don't know how we can trust this administration on anything anymore. Too many promises broken, the trust has eroded and it is difficult to get trust back.
Social Security is a democratic pillar and I find it hard to believe that a democratic President would be the beginning of its undoing but we seem on track for just that.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. No.

A very simple answer.

I have a half dozen knives sticking out of my back, all placed there by O.

Right now I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I do not trust the Democrats to stand up for us either -- too many have been bought and are as corrupt as any GOPer. There will be some who will attempt to do the right thing, but they will be in the minority.

[kickysnana]

28. No. n/t

[Catherina]

29. No. Obama is not on the side of the people n/t

[NJmaverick]

30. Interesting way to attack our President

instead of using facts and REAL events we instead turn to baseless speculation as the source of ammo

[kentuck]

31. "baseless speculation"?

What do you mean by "baseless"?

[NJmaverick]

32. As in there is nothing but unsubstantiated beliefs and biases used to

create the speculation

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

57. Is Obamamaniac allowed in the rules?

Name calling.

[Radical Activist]

55. Isn't your OP based on a dishonest statement

since the President didn't appoint most of the commission? Do you care to correct yourself?

[kentuck]

60. No. I do not care to "correct myself".

I simply asked do you trust President Obama to protect Social Security? Why do you think so many people do not trust him??

[Radical Activist]

67. you asked "why did he put so many conservative, anti-Social Security people on the Commission?"

This suggests that the conservatives were put there by Obama, but he appointed less than half the commission, and some of his appointees are clearly liberal. You're spreading a false and misleading talking point.
Do you think you can make your argument without the false framing?

[kentuck]

69. He had six picks?

He picked two Repubs and Bowles, the "Democrat". Why?

[Radical Activist]

90. So basically, no, you can't make your argument without the misleading exaggeration.

Now I know how seriously I should take your OP.

[jaxx]

44. I haven't seen the details on the commission report, have you?

Since they aren't due till Dec. it's odd that some know the outcome already and it's all bad. Facts...not so much. Baseless speculation...you betcha.

[AtomicKitten]

75. +1

[EFerrari]

78. Whether you like it or not, people are offering their opinions based on

nearly two years of experience with this White House. \

[NJmaverick]

101. By definition they are offering up beliefs not opinions

Opinions require facts to support them, while belief is position without facts to support them.

[EFerrari]

103. LOL. Is this the best use of your time on DU?

lol

[Kalun D]

109. Your posts SUCK

""instead of using facts and REAL events""

Alan Simpson republican sh*tstain saying we are bunch of tit suckers and Obama giving him a pass on it is not a "real event"?

Simpson fu*kstain bashing the veterans is not a "real event" for you?

you're sort of sounding like a DLC/DNC shill, what the heck are you doing on DU anyway if you hate the working class so much?

[earth mom]

135. Wish I could rec your post!

:applause:

[pecwae]

119. For the love of gawd!

Let us know when YOUR opinion about what other members opinions/questions/speculation should be becomes a DU rule.

[nc4bo]

35. No, No and hell no. nt

[emilyg]

36. No. At this point the

only De. I trust is Dean.

[izzybeans]

37. Yes,

The "deficit commission" has been stacked with diverse opinions. We focus on the ones we don't like. And cower in fear of them. They are assholes. But its intellectually lazy to focus on just them.

Perhaps its a function of very little comprehensive reporting on the activities of the commission. We get blurbs that make good copy and increase webtraffic because the assholes say controversial things. No substance.

Thanks for posting, motivated me to start listening to the commission meetings so that I know what was actual said. Something I recommend we all do, so none of us are caught off guard (for better or worse).

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/meetings

[Art_from_Ark]

115. I'll agree that the "deficit commission" has been "stacked"

but "diverse opinions" are not part of it. There is no one on the commission who has a truly vested interest in seeing Social Security continue intact-- not even Jan Schakowsky, who, although she is the most (maybe only) progressive member of the committee, doesn't have to worry about whether or not Social Security will be there to help her get through her retirement years. "Diverse opinions" would have to include regular citizens for whom Social Security would likely be an important part of their post-working life.

[izzybeans]

122. I recommend you listen to the testimony of each

member and guest.

Sincerely, listen. There are people on the commission like you speak. Then there are plenty who are exactly the opposite. I know some lazy bloggers say otherwise, but whatever. I'll go with my own lying eyes.

[Ganja Ninja]

39. Not at all. n/t

[Historic NY]

42. yes..........he has said SS is not in crisis & should not be privatized.

The president acknowledged at a small town hall gathering in Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday 8/18/10 that the pension fund “has to be tweaked because the population is getting older” but said Republicans’ plans to drastically overhaul the program are wrong.

“Social Security is not in crisis,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it.” <...>

“There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits they deserve,” he said.

“I have been adamant that Social Security should not be privatized, and it will not be privatized as long as I am president,” he added.

Obama also said his bipartisan fiscal commission could come up with proposals to extend the life of the program.

“I am absolutely convinced it can be done,” he said.


During the campaign

http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_social_security.htm

Q: You said earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “I’m taking them off the table.”
A: That’s not what I said. I said I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. I believe that cutting benefits is not the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who are still in manufacturing.

Q: But in May you said they would be on the table.

A: Well, I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward.

Q: But the other options would be on the table?

A: Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-security

So I'd say he has been pretty consistant. I think the commission is just an excercise to show how stupid the claims being made are.

[AtomicKitten]

118. I think Pres Obama has been clear about this

... the hysterical speculation here notwithstanding. It's tough for some people here to pass up taking a cheap shot at the president regardless of it having no basis in fact.

Thanks for posting this.

[lonestarnot]

46. In two words FUCK NO!

[mmonk]

47. If you have to ask, then what do you think?

[leeroysphitz]

48. No.n/t

[Edweird]

54. No. His 'commission' is an attempt to provide political cover for his attack on it.

[rug]

58. "A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music."

Do you trust Social Security to someone who says this?

[tallahasseedem]

59. Yes.

Next question.

[COLGATE4]

62. NFW! (No) n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. No. n/t

[beforeyoureyes]

64. No.

[DrDan]

65. nope . . . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Trusting politicians to do other than serve their own interests is a fool's errand.

Obama is a professional politician with his eyes on the next election. I *trust* him to do whatever he and his political advisers see as the safest path to a 2nd term.

In a democracy, we aren't supposed to "trust" our leaders.

[Poboy]

71. No Effing way. Not an inch, not a scintilla. The fact he formed the commission

and loaded it up with chainsaw operatives speaks for itself. The fact there is no consequence for the vile rhetoric is only confirmation.

[Carolina]

77. Hell NO!

His choice and retention of Alan Simpson speaks VOLUMES!

[SargeUNN]

79. can the Republicans????

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

80. No, I don't. nt

[ladjf]

84. No, even though protecting it should be a great political move.

Obama seems to be marching to some drums other that those of average Americans. nt

[bvar22]

86. Cuts to Social Security will be "only a tiny sliver" of the "Comprehensive Package"

...that will Save our children from a Crushing Deficit.

Are you going to "let the Perfect be the enemy of The Good"?
Are you going to "help the Republicans"?
Besides, they will "fix it later".


This is HOW "they" will cut your Social Security:

1) Saturate the Media with the meme that something MUST be done to "Reduce the Deficit" or there will be a catastrophe, and strongly imply that Social Security is one of the BIG causes for the deficit.

2)Remove Pentagon/Military Spending from any discussion of cuts,
and insist that anyone who even talks about cuts to Military Spending are crazy, drug addled extremists.

3)Give all the "Centrist Democrats" plenty of time to get out public statements that they support Social Security, and would never vote to reduce benefits.

4)Form an "Independent Bi-Partisan Commission" that meets in secret to design a "Comprehensive Package" of ways to Reduce the Deficit. This package will be lengthy and complicated, and it WILL contain reductions to Social Security benefits. The package will also contain a few crumbs that ARE good for the economy. These crumbs will be minor in scale compared to the structural changes to Social Security.

The "Commission Recommendations" will also contain some scam that opens the door for Wall Street to have access to Social Security funds. For cover, the package will contain some easily avoidable "regulations" that will appear to restrict how Wall Street can use the Social Security Funds, but these "regulations" are NOT there to actually REGULATE; they are there to provide cover.


5)The Marketing and Message Control will be Up and Running when the contents of the package is revealed. The Media will be saturated with pieces that highlight and overemphasize the few good crumbs, and catastrophizing the effects of not immediately passing "The Comprehensive Package".
(SEE: TARP)


6)The Progressive Caucus opposition WILL be marginalized (again), and the full force of the White House, the DLC, DNC, and their Corporate Marketing & Messaging apparatus will be used to brand any "Democratic" opposition as "traitors", "with the Republicans", "against Wall Street Regulation", "against the American People", "against Saving Social Security" or "Opposed to Saving our Children".
There will be a saturation of anecdotal testimony highlighting how certain crumbs will "Save our Family", therefore the whole package MUST pass.
The Mighty Wurlitzer will be turned UP to FULL BLAST.
Any and ALL opposition from The Left WILL be Shouted Down and Demonized.
(SEE: HCR)

7)The Republican Party will play their assigned part in the Kabuki, and oppose the whole thing as "Big Government Takeover". It doesn't matter that their position makes no sense. It only matters that they oppose it so the illusion of a difference is maintained.

8)The "Commission Recommendations" will be brought to Congress to be voted on as a "complete comprehensive package", Up or Down vote, during the panic immediately following the Democratic Losses in November 2010.
No honest debate will be allowed.
No discussion of amending the package or deleting some elements will be allowed.
Democrats will NOT be "voting to cut Social Security".
They will be voting FOR "Saving the Economy", or "Protecting our Children (from the deficit)".

9) The Complete Comprehensive Package of Commission Recommendations WILL pass with a Party Line vote, or one or two Republican defectors if necessary to maintain the illusion of a Hard Fight.
No Democrat will have to admit that they voted to Cut Social Security.
Instead, they voted FOR a Reform Package that Saved the Economy.


10) The politicians will flock to the cameras with statements like this:
"I am on record as supporting Social Security, and of course I would have liked to NOT cut benefits, but we had to do something."

"This is "historic" reform legislation, look at all the good (crumbs) we got!"

"We couldn't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

"This is the best we could do under the circumstances because we didn't have the votes.

"This is a Step Forward."

"Today, we saved our children from a crushing deficit."

"We needed to get something done NOW. We will Fix it Later.




Sound familiar?
It should.

If you think I'm a little over the top in my assessment,
take a look at Chris Van Hollen's (weasel, MD) performance when asked a direct question on cutting Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4#

Again,
No Democrat will be voting to "Cut Social Security".
They WILL be voting FOR "Comprehensive Historic Reform that Saves our Children."

THAT is WHY this diabolical Commission and "The Comprehensive Package" is so necessary.


They are coming.
"By their works you will know them."

[blindpig]

89. +1

[GOTV]

120. a "tiny sliver" of the total cost to be born by the middle class. n/t

[dmosh42]

87. He'll give the Repukes an apology for having Soc Sec.! n/t

[Bluebear]

93. No

He's a politician.

[fascisthunter]

96. I Can't Trust Him

[G_j]

100. nope

[WVRICK13]

104. No, Unfortunately

I wish we could, but I don't think we can trust any politician to do anything but lie, deceive and pander.

[Luciferous]

105. Hell no.

[maryf]

108. Why'd Obama let for profit health insurance corporations develop Obamacare?

same reason different day...follow the money...

[Kalun D]

110. Hey Comedians Are Out of Work

so stop trying to be funny

the answer to your question

can a bear be trusted to not sh*t in the woods?

k and r, k and r, k and r

[McCamy Taylor]

111. No. Weakest most ineffectual president since JFK, all glamor and no action.

[burrowowl]

112. NO!

Why? is keeping Simpson on and hasn't gone one on the bully pulpit to tell the truth, really to let top 2% keep their tax break, etc.

[ibegurpard]

113. no

he created an unnecessary commission and staffed it with people who are on record as wanting to, at best, tinker with social security.
And it fits with all his other "reforms": keeping healthcare in the hands of private insurers and trying to turn over public schools to corporations as well.

[Safetykitten]

114. Probably not.

[readmoreoften]

116. No.

[Raksha]

117. No.

[Orsino]

121. It's not his job to protect Social Security...

...but I'm not sure we can count on him to take a strong stance to defend it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

123. NO!

[Mimosa]

125. No and no. Sad to say. n/t

[JoePhilly]

127. No ... let's impeach him!!!

:sarcasm:

[Mimosa]

129. Ridiculous.

Why shouldn't people be fearful that a bunch of rightwingers are being allowed to 'examine' and make suggestions about our Social Security?

[JoePhilly]

132. The hand wrining is endless.

[Bluebear]

134. Yeah, all this hand wrining.

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

130. no.

[Swamp Rat]

131. No politician can be trusted with anything.

They lie for a living.

[amborin]

133. No, which is why we must keep up a loud and growing chorus to safeguard it from their intentions

[earth mom]

136. NO! That mo fo Simpson is still on the cat food commission says it all!

:argh:

:grr: